The craziest story out there, which has gone almost completely unnoticed, is the scientists who wrote a detailed paper about all the UFOs recently seen over Ukraine
“Astronomers in Ukraine are observing UFOs "everywhere" and classifying them as Cosmics or Phantoms based on brightness. They estimate their size to be about 3 to 12 meters with speeds over 33,000 mph. For context, planes fly at 500-600 mph.”
What was that tv show about aliens who helped humanity unify after a global conflict, only it turned out the aliens had been around and helped start it secretly.
Cracking plot twist
The theory is the aliens are intrigued/concerned at our apparent desire to destroy ourselves, hence their interest in military sites, esp nukes. Makes sense they’d be all over Ukraine
I also love the way that scientific paper calmly solves the problem: Where are all the good photos of UFOs now that we all have cameras?
Our cameras can’t capture them. They fly too fast to be registered by normal cameras (or the human eye)
I mean, if this is true (and not a hoax) this is the biggest story in human history. Just calmly sitting out there. Buried under the news of Her Majesty’s demise
Are you fingering aliens for HM's demise?
(Interesting preprint btw, I've only given it a very quick skim, but I'll look in more detail later.)
It’s properly fascinating. I don’t believe it’s a hoax. Do read
I remember when I first started ranting about UFOs on here (prompted by @moonshine) someone said: Yeah, whatever, I’ll only be interested when there are actual scientific papers about UFOs, by proper scientists
Well, here you go. Here’s a proper scientific paper by actual boffins. Observing multiple unknown craft flying at 55,000 KPH
Much faster than even the fastest ICBM
And they are clustering over a war zone with a potential to go nuclear….
We are getting quite close to Full Disclosure (unless this is a truly elaborate hoax)
I've not read it but skimmed the document. It's just a pdf with some pretty graphics. There must be about 500 words in it, tops. Two references. Sorry but it looks Mickey Mouse. Anyone could have made it, then uploaded it.
It hasn't been published and it's not clear where the authors are affiliated.
I would place about 1% weighting on the credibility of that source, with current information.
The authors are genuine Ukrainian scientists, so we can dismiss the idea the whole thing is faked by others
However the Ukrainian scientists themselves could be faking the data, tho then we must ask why. Perhaps the war has sent them mad? Not impossible
What is a fake Ukrainian scientist? One that's imported by the Russians?
Like when I'm asked if I prefer real ale, and I say 'I don't know, I've never tried a fake one.'
I know, but I just wanted to scotch the idea these professors do not exist. They do, and this is a legitimate paper
It seems unlikely they would be fooled by insects. So either they are seeing something genuinely mysterious, or this is a very elaborate hoax by Ukrainian scientists - or the war has sent them mad, likesay
It's been a while since I did my physics PhD, but it certainly doesn't look like a genuine paper. A lot of it simply doesn't make sense. Take, for example, the statement, "It is a completely black body that does not emit and absorbs all the radiation falling on it.".
1) How could they know? How could they possibly have measured the emission and absorption of radiation of all wavelengths by this object? 2) A body that absorbs radiation but doesn't emit radiation is thermodynamically impossible. It would attain an infinite temperature. In fact, it is relatively easily provable that the absorption and emission coefficients of a body are the same for a particular wavelength. 3) Indeed a perfectly black body is, by definition, a perfect emitter as well as a perfect absorber. (Note that black bodies in the scientific sense don't have to actually appear black - the sun is pretty close to being a black body.)
This is either a hoax, or the author has lost his marbles.
Can something not be blacker than its surroundings? i.e spotting the absence of light in that part of the sky.
Of course something can be blacker than its surroundings, but it can't "[absorb] all the radiation falling on it"*
* Unless its a black hole, and even they are thought to emit Hawking radiation.
Timothy Ash @tashecon · 45m Near universal response from the people in the City I talk to is that this is a pretty disastrous “special fiscal operation” by Kwasi Kwateng. The mood is grim around all things to do with the UK.
Much more important than what the markets do today is what they do next week after the analysts have had the weekend to absorb and work through all the detail. If they fall again, then the government is in serious trouble.
LOL at the left wingers who are now saying that perhaps Boris wasn't so bad afterall, now that a PM doing Brownite tax and spend policies has been replaced by a tax cutting Conservative.
Almost as amusing as all the Remainers who objected to Theresa May's Brexit deal that effectively kept us in both the Single Market and Customs Union via the backstop being appalled at that being replaced by Boris's deal.
The craziest story out there, which has gone almost completely unnoticed, is the scientists who wrote a detailed paper about all the UFOs recently seen over Ukraine
“Astronomers in Ukraine are observing UFOs "everywhere" and classifying them as Cosmics or Phantoms based on brightness. They estimate their size to be about 3 to 12 meters with speeds over 33,000 mph. For context, planes fly at 500-600 mph.”
What was that tv show about aliens who helped humanity unify after a global conflict, only it turned out the aliens had been around and helped start it secretly.
Cracking plot twist
The theory is the aliens are intrigued/concerned at our apparent desire to destroy ourselves, hence their interest in military sites, esp nukes. Makes sense they’d be all over Ukraine
I also love the way that scientific paper calmly solves the problem: Where are all the good photos of UFOs now that we all have cameras?
Our cameras can’t capture them. They fly too fast to be registered by normal cameras (or the human eye)
I mean, if this is true (and not a hoax) this is the biggest story in human history. Just calmly sitting out there. Buried under the news of Her Majesty’s demise
Are you fingering aliens for HM's demise?
(Interesting preprint btw, I've only given it a very quick skim, but I'll look in more detail later.)
It’s properly fascinating. I don’t believe it’s a hoax. Do read
I remember when I first started ranting about UFOs on here (prompted by @moonshine) someone said: Yeah, whatever, I’ll only be interested when there are actual scientific papers about UFOs, by proper scientists
Well, here you go. Here’s a proper scientific paper by actual boffins. Observing multiple unknown craft flying at 55,000 KPH
Much faster than even the fastest ICBM
And they are clustering over a war zone with a potential to go nuclear….
We are getting quite close to Full Disclosure (unless this is a truly elaborate hoax)
I've not read it but skimmed the document. It's just a pdf with some pretty graphics. There must be about 500 words in it, tops. Two references. Sorry but it looks Mickey Mouse. Anyone could have made it, then uploaded it.
It hasn't been published and it's not clear where the authors are affiliated.
I would place about 1% weighting on the credibility of that source, with current information.
The authors are genuine Ukrainian scientists, so we can dismiss the idea the whole thing is faked by others
However the Ukrainian scientists themselves could be faking the data, tho then we must ask why. Perhaps the war has sent them mad? Not impossible
What is a fake Ukrainian scientist? One that's imported by the Russians?
Like when I'm asked if I prefer real ale, and I say 'I don't know, I've never tried a fake one.'
I know, but I just wanted to scotch the idea these professors do not exist. They do, and this is a legitimate paper
It seems unlikely they would be fooled by insects. So either they are seeing something genuinely mysterious, or this is a very elaborate hoax by Ukrainian scientists - or the war has sent them mad, likesay
It's been a while since I did my physics PhD, but it certainly doesn't look like a genuine paper. A lot of it simply doesn't make sense. Take, for example, the statement, "It is a completely black body that does not emit and absorbs all the radiation falling on it.".
1) How could they know? How could they possibly have measured the emission and absorption of radiation of all wavelengths by this object? 2) A body that absorbs radiation but doesn't emit radiation is thermodynamically impossible. It would attain an infinite temperature. In fact, it is relatively easily provable that the absorption and emission coefficients of a body are the same for a particular wavelength. 3) Indeed a perfectly black body is, by definition, a perfect emitter as well as a perfect absorber. (Note that black bodies in the scientific sense don't have to actually appear black - the sun is pretty close to being a black body.)
This is either a hoax, or the author has lost his marbles.
I can believe either: that it is a hoax, or that it is the product of war-induced insanity
I can also believe that they are really seeing something
it would be great if it was properly addressed by boffins
Much more important than what the markets do today is what they do next week after the analysts have had the weekend to absorb and work through all the detail. If they fall again, then the government is in serious trouble.
I'm honestly still a bit shocked at the new fiscal policy direction. We've completely abandoned any pretence of sound money and fully embraced US style trickle down capitalism.
Someone in the next few years is going to have to make absolutely eye watering spending cuts including a lot of sacred cows like healthcare and old age spending to make this work. We can't have an 11% state and public sector pension rise that will add £16bn to spending per year and another £6-7bn the following years and all of these tax cuts. One of these is unaffordable.
The craziest story out there, which has gone almost completely unnoticed, is the scientists who wrote a detailed paper about all the UFOs recently seen over Ukraine
“Astronomers in Ukraine are observing UFOs "everywhere" and classifying them as Cosmics or Phantoms based on brightness. They estimate their size to be about 3 to 12 meters with speeds over 33,000 mph. For context, planes fly at 500-600 mph.”
What was that tv show about aliens who helped humanity unify after a global conflict, only it turned out the aliens had been around and helped start it secretly.
Cracking plot twist
The theory is the aliens are intrigued/concerned at our apparent desire to destroy ourselves, hence their interest in military sites, esp nukes. Makes sense they’d be all over Ukraine
I also love the way that scientific paper calmly solves the problem: Where are all the good photos of UFOs now that we all have cameras?
Our cameras can’t capture them. They fly too fast to be registered by normal cameras (or the human eye)
I mean, if this is true (and not a hoax) this is the biggest story in human history. Just calmly sitting out there. Buried under the news of Her Majesty’s demise
Are you fingering aliens for HM's demise?
(Interesting preprint btw, I've only given it a very quick skim, but I'll look in more detail later.)
It’s properly fascinating. I don’t believe it’s a hoax. Do read
I remember when I first started ranting about UFOs on here (prompted by @moonshine) someone said: Yeah, whatever, I’ll only be interested when there are actual scientific papers about UFOs, by proper scientists
Well, here you go. Here’s a proper scientific paper by actual boffins. Observing multiple unknown craft flying at 55,000 KPH
Much faster than even the fastest ICBM
And they are clustering over a war zone with a potential to go nuclear….
We are getting quite close to Full Disclosure (unless this is a truly elaborate hoax)
I've not read it but skimmed the document. It's just a pdf with some pretty graphics. There must be about 500 words in it, tops. Two references. Sorry but it looks Mickey Mouse. Anyone could have made it, then uploaded it.
It hasn't been published and it's not clear where the authors are affiliated.
I would place about 1% weighting on the credibility of that source, with current information.
The authors are genuine Ukrainian scientists, so we can dismiss the idea the whole thing is faked by others
However the Ukrainian scientists themselves could be faking the data, tho then we must ask why. Perhaps the war has sent them mad? Not impossible
What is a fake Ukrainian scientist? One that's imported by the Russians?
Like when I'm asked if I prefer real ale, and I say 'I don't know, I've never tried a fake one.'
I know, but I just wanted to scotch the idea these professors do not exist. They do, and this is a legitimate paper
It seems unlikely they would be fooled by insects. So either they are seeing something genuinely mysterious, or this is a very elaborate hoax by Ukrainian scientists - or the war has sent them mad, likesay
It's been a while since I did my physics PhD, but it certainly doesn't look like a genuine paper. A lot of it simply doesn't make sense. Take, for example, the statement, "It is a completely black body that does not emit and absorbs all the radiation falling on it.".
1) How could they know? How could they possibly have measured the emission and absorption of radiation of all wavelengths by this object? 2) A body that absorbs radiation but doesn't emit radiation is thermodynamically impossible. It would attain an infinite temperature. In fact, it is relatively easily provable that the absorption and emission coefficients of a body are the same for a particular wavelength. 3) Indeed a perfectly black body is, by definition, a perfect emitter as well as a perfect absorber. (Note that black bodies in the scientific sense don't have to actually appear black - the sun is pretty close to being a black body.)
This is either a hoax, or the author has lost his marbles.
I can believe either: that it is a hoax, or that it is the product of war-induced insanity
I can also believe that they are really seeing something
it would be great if it was properly addressed by boffins
Who knows what they're seeing? What they're writing is pseudo-scientific gibberish.
I've always wondered about why speculative attacks on the pound were considered scary. Long term decline in the value of the pound is a concern. People trying to make a buck (heh) selling it, fine, go for it. It will go back up if it's undervalued. In the meantime, our exports will be more competitive, our pound-denominated national debt will shrink, and inbound tourism will increase. All part of the mood music I suppose.
The craziest story out there, which has gone almost completely unnoticed, is the scientists who wrote a detailed paper about all the UFOs recently seen over Ukraine
“Astronomers in Ukraine are observing UFOs "everywhere" and classifying them as Cosmics or Phantoms based on brightness. They estimate their size to be about 3 to 12 meters with speeds over 33,000 mph. For context, planes fly at 500-600 mph.”
What was that tv show about aliens who helped humanity unify after a global conflict, only it turned out the aliens had been around and helped start it secretly.
Cracking plot twist
The theory is the aliens are intrigued/concerned at our apparent desire to destroy ourselves, hence their interest in military sites, esp nukes. Makes sense they’d be all over Ukraine
I also love the way that scientific paper calmly solves the problem: Where are all the good photos of UFOs now that we all have cameras?
Our cameras can’t capture them. They fly too fast to be registered by normal cameras (or the human eye)
I mean, if this is true (and not a hoax) this is the biggest story in human history. Just calmly sitting out there. Buried under the news of Her Majesty’s demise
Are you fingering aliens for HM's demise?
(Interesting preprint btw, I've only given it a very quick skim, but I'll look in more detail later.)
It’s properly fascinating. I don’t believe it’s a hoax. Do read
I remember when I first started ranting about UFOs on here (prompted by @moonshine) someone said: Yeah, whatever, I’ll only be interested when there are actual scientific papers about UFOs, by proper scientists
Well, here you go. Here’s a proper scientific paper by actual boffins. Observing multiple unknown craft flying at 55,000 KPH
Much faster than even the fastest ICBM
And they are clustering over a war zone with a potential to go nuclear….
We are getting quite close to Full Disclosure (unless this is a truly elaborate hoax)
I've not read it but skimmed the document. It's just a pdf with some pretty graphics. There must be about 500 words in it, tops. Two references. Sorry but it looks Mickey Mouse. Anyone could have made it, then uploaded it.
It hasn't been published and it's not clear where the authors are affiliated.
I would place about 1% weighting on the credibility of that source, with current information.
The authors are genuine Ukrainian scientists, so we can dismiss the idea the whole thing is faked by others
However the Ukrainian scientists themselves could be faking the data, tho then we must ask why. Perhaps the war has sent them mad? Not impossible
What is a fake Ukrainian scientist? One that's imported by the Russians?
Like when I'm asked if I prefer real ale, and I say 'I don't know, I've never tried a fake one.'
I know, but I just wanted to scotch the idea these professors do not exist. They do, and this is a legitimate paper
It seems unlikely they would be fooled by insects. So either they are seeing something genuinely mysterious, or this is a very elaborate hoax by Ukrainian scientists - or the war has sent them mad, likesay
It's been a while since I did my physics PhD, but it certainly doesn't look like a genuine paper. A lot of it simply doesn't make sense. Take, for example, the statement, "It is a completely black body that does not emit and absorbs all the radiation falling on it.".
1) How could they know? How could they possibly have measured the emission and absorption of radiation of all wavelengths by this object? 2) A body that absorbs radiation but doesn't emit radiation is thermodynamically impossible. It would attain an infinite temperature. In fact, it is relatively easily provable that the absorption and emission coefficients of a body are the same for a particular wavelength. 3) Indeed a perfectly black body is, by definition, a perfect emitter as well as a perfect absorber. (Note that black bodies in the scientific sense don't have to actually appear black - the sun is pretty close to being a black body.)
This is either a hoax, or the author has lost his marbles.
I can believe either: that it is a hoax, or that it is the product of war-induced insanity
I can also believe that they are really seeing something
it would be great if it was properly addressed by boffins
The thing in figure 2 looks like an optical ghost as if the camera wasn't sufficiently baffled. Lens flare, effectively.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
And neither do you!
You are Arthur Laffer's last flag flyer. It's bollocks!
Of course neither do I, I literally said that myself, its impossible to do so!
I am far from Laffer's last flag flyer. But riddle me this, if high tax rates work then why when tax rates are at the highest in 74 years do we not have the fastest consistent growth in 74 years? Why is the opposite true?
The facts speak for themselves, taxes have been consistently lifted, and growth has evaporated as a result. High taxes strangle growth, its time to take the handbrake off the economy.
Much more important than what the markets do today is what they do next week after the analysts have had the weekend to absorb and work through all the detail. If they fall again, then the government is in serious trouble.
I wonder if Tom Scholar is sitting at home thinking "Thank fuck I am not in charge right now..."
To reap what he has sown?
His policies led to this. His policies led to recession. His policies led to gargantuan debt.
🤣 "his policies". Public service announcement, Conservative politicians not civil servants, have been in charge of decision making on the economy in this country since 2010.
There's been a broad mainstream consensus shared by all parties since about 2000. If Truss doesn't get spooked by the reaction to this mini-budget then she could represent a decisive break from that orthodoxy.
Not really. Labour consistently attacked the Tories for heavy handed austerity after 2010. Apparently the Tories now share that view, but have changed their minds at exactly the wrong time, with double digit inflation and rising interest rates. I seem to remember there was some other issue which generated a lot of political disagreement in the last few years, too, something to do with Europe. The Tories got that wrong, too. This isn't a "break with orthodoxy" , it's a descent into madness - doing the same thing and expecting a different result. 1988, 1972 - big tax cuts, followed by inflation, rate hikes, currency crises, housing market crashes and a visit from the IMF. It is all so sadly predictable. Last one out turn off the lights.
NIESR “We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24.”
(By the way, are the NIESR actually considered independent and/or unbiased? They are often talked about in that way.)
Russian officers tell newly mobilized men here that they will have three days where they are and then around two weeks of training before they’re ready to be shipped out to Ukraine (and likely used as cannon fodder). https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1573299600215404544
I've always wondered about why speculative attacks on the pound were considered scary. Long term decline in the value of the pound is a concern. People trying to make a buck (heh) selling it, fine, go for it. It will go back up if it's undervalued. In the meantime, our exports will be more competitive, our pound-denominated national debt will shrink, and inbound tourism will increase. All part of the mood music I suppose.
Suez for example - an event I've never studied or really understood. The US threatened to pull the plug on the pound if we didn't withdraw, right? Would it have been such a disaster just to let them? I don't know, it's a question.
It's still a bit mad that in this economic environment I've been handed a £15k+ tax cut. It's not as if I really need it either.
I think I may use it to make some very high risk investments in UK start up funds. It seems like that would be the best use of it where everyone wins. Clearly the government has given up on the idea of supporting industry...
I wonder if Tom Scholar is sitting at home thinking "Thank fuck I am not in charge right now..."
To reap what he has sown?
His policies led to this. His policies led to recession. His policies led to gargantuan debt.
🤣 "his policies". Public service announcement, Conservative politicians not civil servants, have been in charge of decision making on the economy in this country since 2010.
There's been a broad mainstream consensus shared by all parties since about 2000. If Truss doesn't get spooked by the reaction to this mini-budget then she could represent a decisive break from that orthodoxy.
Not really. Labour consistently attacked the Tories for heavy handed austerity after 2010. Apparently the Tories now share that view, but have changed their minds at exactly the wrong time, with double digit inflation and rising interest rates. I seem to remember there was some other issue which generated a lot of political disagreement in the last few years, too, something to do with Europe. The Tories got that wrong, too. This isn't a "break with orthodoxy" , it's a descent into madness - doing the same thing and expecting a different result. 1988, 1972 - big tax cuts, followed by inflation, rate hikes, currency crises, housing market crashes and a visit from the IMF. It is all so sadly predictable. Last one out turn off the lights.
'Austerity' to one degree or another was the policy of both parties. They were just arguing about the details rather than any fundamental ideological difference.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
Of course we know there's a curve. Do you think we'd generate more or less in taxes if we had 100% tax rates?
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
Much more important than what the markets do today is what they do next week after the analysts have had the weekend to absorb and work through all the detail. If they fall again, then the government is in serious trouble.
Lost 9.1c in a calendar month. And falling vertically at the moment...
This will also aid our exporters of course.
Exporters of what?
In my line of services exports, convention is to price in USD. When I started the business in 2007, a $1000 sale would yield about £500. Now it yields about £900. I pay my mortgage in Sterling. So it benefits me.
If I were in a more price-sensitive business, I could reduce the price to beat my competitors, which would be another effect. But that doesn't really apply in my case.
Do the '22 change the rules to prevent members from voting in a new leader before Truss gets VONCed?
Would probably be smart by Labour to table a VONC asap and make a big noise about this Special Budget.
There might be enough Tories who aren’t bonkers to abstain/vote with Labour but even if there aren’t then, should this go the way it’s sadly likely to and the economy is fried, then they can shout from the rooftops that they tried to stop this.
Summers: “Between Brexit, how far the Bank of England got behind the curve and now these fiscal policies, I think Britain will be remembered for having pursuing the worst macroeconomic policies of any major country in a long time.”
Be afraid. Summers' views carry a lot of weight in the markets. He is probably the most respected commentator in international macro. He's not always right, but he usually is.
Woh woh woah. Throw on the emergency brakes here. Larry Summers has an atrocious track record of predictions. From deregulating derivatives, underestimating need for Obama stimulus, Asian financial crisis, facebook being a big deal... he's consistently wrong. He may have called inflation right lately (jury is out IMO).
NIESR “We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24.”
(By the way, are the NIESR actually considered independent and/or unbiased? They are often talked about in that way.)
This fiscal package should boost growth in the very near term. Just like the Lawson and Barber booms. Markets are questioning more the longer term impact.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
Of course we know there's a curve. Do you think we'd generate more or less in taxes if we had 100% tax rates?
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
Many have debunked the correlation that you and Laffer insists works. You have adopted your usual stopped clock strategy to prove its validity.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
Of course we know there's a curve. Do you think we'd generate more or less in taxes if we had 100% tax rates?
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
Yes but the “curve” is not a simple function of tax take vs tax rate. It will depend on all manner of factors including the state of other world economies, the political environment, etc. Your over simplification is juvenile.
Just paid £6.95 for a pint in a zero waste pizzeria in Hackney. Clientele appears to be mostly middle aged white people with ponytails. No recession for these guys
At the Oval I paid £8 for a pint. £8.
Horse, I remember my first (slightly underage) pub bought pint cost me 35p for a pint of M&B Brew XI (I know, what was wrong with the water?) in 1979. That's only 13 beer inflationary years under Labour, the rest is the work of the Conservatives.
Lucky they have reduced beer duty for us all to drown our sorrows.
False comparison, though. Foor and drink prices at sports stadiums have always been higher than elsewhere for the same reason that fuel at motorway service stations is more expensive than elsewhere.
Maybe it was a sports bar of the future rather than a seedy Midlands pub. Either way I didn't expect my anecdote to be taken seriously by some earnest and touchy Tory.
You're talking to a poorly optimised AI bot Pete
And yet you're in your third incarnation because the first two were banned.
This is at least the fifth account you've had, so you're projecting as usual
What previous accounts do I have which have been banned, please?
The craziest story out there, which has gone almost completely unnoticed, is the scientists who wrote a detailed paper about all the UFOs recently seen over Ukraine
“Astronomers in Ukraine are observing UFOs "everywhere" and classifying them as Cosmics or Phantoms based on brightness. They estimate their size to be about 3 to 12 meters with speeds over 33,000 mph. For context, planes fly at 500-600 mph.”
What was that tv show about aliens who helped humanity unify after a global conflict, only it turned out the aliens had been around and helped start it secretly.
Cracking plot twist
The theory is the aliens are intrigued/concerned at our apparent desire to destroy ourselves, hence their interest in military sites, esp nukes. Makes sense they’d be all over Ukraine
I also love the way that scientific paper calmly solves the problem: Where are all the good photos of UFOs now that we all have cameras?
Our cameras can’t capture them. They fly too fast to be registered by normal cameras (or the human eye)
I mean, if this is true (and not a hoax) this is the biggest story in human history. Just calmly sitting out there. Buried under the news of Her Majesty’s demise
Are you fingering aliens for HM's demise?
(Interesting preprint btw, I've only given it a very quick skim, but I'll look in more detail later.)
It’s properly fascinating. I don’t believe it’s a hoax. Do read
I remember when I first started ranting about UFOs on here (prompted by @moonshine) someone said: Yeah, whatever, I’ll only be interested when there are actual scientific papers about UFOs, by proper scientists
Well, here you go. Here’s a proper scientific paper by actual boffins. Observing multiple unknown craft flying at 55,000 KPH
Much faster than even the fastest ICBM
And they are clustering over a war zone with a potential to go nuclear….
We are getting quite close to Full Disclosure (unless this is a truly elaborate hoax)
I've not read it but skimmed the document. It's just a pdf with some pretty graphics. There must be about 500 words in it, tops. Two references. Sorry but it looks Mickey Mouse. Anyone could have made it, then uploaded it.
It hasn't been published and it's not clear where the authors are affiliated.
I would place about 1% weighting on the credibility of that source, with current information.
Having now read it through, I agree. Physics is not my field any more, but there's nowhere near enough detail in this to get it through peer review (or to peer review at any journal whose editors are doing their job). Which is not necessarily a problem, arxiv is supposed to be about getting stuff out pre-submissions.
Some issues: - complete lack of info on cameras and setup, so we can't consider likelihood of other sources of signals, e.g. interference* - more broadly almost complete lack of detail in methods - some objects only captured in one frame and a minimum speed inferred from that (but if it's only in one frame it could be something that's transient and not moving at all) - one object captured at two sites, which would rule out random interference* in one camera - but only one? - and also quite late in the paper; this is by far the best evidence for an actual something, I'd lead with it personally - lots of chat about NASA, US DoD etc without any direct link - it's fine, but it seems to big up things a bit - lack of discussion, should explore and (if appropriate) discount alternative explanations
Whatever the explanation, it's likely to be interesting, if possibly mundane. I remember stories from physis profs of interesting things detected in sensitive equipment that turned out to be the cleaner turning on the vac three floors away for example. Who knows. If there's a full paper, I'll be interested to read it in due course.
This kind of reads like a first draft undergrad project write-up - is it possible that's it and a student got overexcited and popped it on arxiv with supervisors names? Are all the authors confirmed as bona fide qualified scientists?
*interefence as in something causing an electron to move in the sensor, not deliberate manipulation by the authors etc
Russian officers tell newly mobilized men here that they will have three days where they are and then around two weeks of training before they’re ready to be shipped out to Ukraine (and likely used as cannon fodder). https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1573299600215404544
This is presumably for the mobilized reservists? If Putin is giving men with no previous military training just two weeks then the officers who have to lead them into battle are just going to wave the white flag after about ten minutes.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
Perhaps we could give people at the bottom more than a few pennies by not giving back quite as many bags of pennies to the landed few at the top.
You have been a champion for people fucked by marginal tax rates - something I applaud you for. Yet here you are applauding a budget which does brutal marginal tax rates to people on very modest incomes https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1573249403795939328
This, like everything George Eaton does, is dubious. He's assuming everyone earning 150k has already paid off their student loan, everyone on 50k hasn't, and calling it tax. Even if you believe modern student loans are effectively a graduate tax, this analysis is childishly simplistic.
I left uni 10 years ago and am nowhere near paying off my original loan.
You're not supposed to "pay it off" unless you are very well paid. A student "loan" is not a debt.
It is a debt though. You've borrowed money and you have to pay it back. That's a loan, you just don't like calling it that because you don't have an answer.
No, it isn't. You don't have to pay it back - if you don't earn enough to pay it back it disappears after 25 years.
The amount you pay depends on what you earn, not what you "owe".
It's a capped graduate tax.
Erh yes you do. If you don't they come after you
If you don't earn enough over 25 years, you don't have to pay it back - it disappears.
I wonder if Tom Scholar is sitting at home thinking "Thank fuck I am not in charge right now..."
To reap what he has sown?
His policies led to this. His policies led to recession. His policies led to gargantuan debt.
🤣 "his policies". Public service announcement, Conservative politicians not civil servants, have been in charge of decision making on the economy in this country since 2010.
There's been a broad mainstream consensus shared by all parties since about 2000. If Truss doesn't get spooked by the reaction to this mini-budget then she could represent a decisive break from that orthodoxy.
Not really. Labour consistently attacked the Tories for heavy handed austerity after 2010. Apparently the Tories now share that view, but have changed their minds at exactly the wrong time, with double digit inflation and rising interest rates. I seem to remember there was some other issue which generated a lot of political disagreement in the last few years, too, something to do with Europe. The Tories got that wrong, too. This isn't a "break with orthodoxy" , it's a descent into madness - doing the same thing and expecting a different result. 1988, 1972 - big tax cuts, followed by inflation, rate hikes, currency crises, housing market crashes and a visit from the IMF. It is all so sadly predictable. Last one out turn off the lights.
'Austerity' to one degree or another was the policy of both parties. They were just arguing about the details rather than any fundamental ideological difference.
They all agreed that ultimately the UK had to stop its debt to GDP ratio going up, because that's a position that all sane people sign up to. Beyond that, no there were profound disagreements.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
Of course we know there's a curve. Do you think we'd generate more or less in taxes if we had 100% tax rates?
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
Many have debunked the correlation that you and Laffer insists works. You have adopted your usual stopped clock strategy to prove its validity.
Nobody has debunked Laffer, people dispute it but disputing something and debunking it are two completely different things.
As it stands, we have the highest tax rates and most anaemic long term growth rates in three quarters of a century. You can argue that's correlation instead of causation if you please, but that doesn't make my view that one is causing the other wrong.
I said the Tories were wrong to put up taxes, and tore up my membership as a result. I will stand by my principles, high taxes doesn't work.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
Of course we know there's a curve. Do you think we'd generate more or less in taxes if we had 100% tax rates?
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
No, you are assuming some kind of predictable relationship between tax rate changes within that 0-100% range, which is necessary to give a 'curve'. If that predictable relationship simply doesn't exist - and no one has been able to give any account of it which is practically useful - then your 'curve' is an imaginary thing.
Given that the tax cuts -> economic growth path only works if you have Keynes “animal spirits” there to drive the growth, this is a massive problem.
Currency crisis anyone?
I attended the political party podcast in Edinburgh, at which Gordon Brown articulated a number of crises coming down the track, some of which I hadn't even heard of. At the time, in those heady August days of yore, no one was talking much about devaluation. We're talking about it now.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
Perhaps we could give people at the bottom more than a few pennies by not giving back quite as many bags of pennies to the landed few at the top.
You have been a champion for people fucked by marginal tax rates - something I applaud you for. Yet here you are applauding a budget which does brutal marginal tax rates to people on very modest incomes https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1573249403795939328
Ah, I see where you're going wrong logically.
This is not about "giving money back", it's about taking less money. To give money to non-taxpayers, you need to beat up the tenth man.
LOL. You don't have to beat up the tenth man. You have to take a slightly higher rate of income tax from the tenth man.
Because the highest ever tax burden just isn't quite high enough.
NIESR “We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24.”
(By the way, are the NIESR actually considered independent and/or unbiased? They are often talked about in that way.)
This fiscal package should boost growth in the very near term. Just like the Lawson and Barber booms. Markets are questioning more the longer term impact.
Yes, I don't see what longer term impact on growth this is going to have. For once you and I are in agreement.
It's a huge gamble and one that I don't see coming off and the nation will pick up the pieces for this act of idiocy from Truss and Kwarteng.
Labour really do have a once in a generation opportunity after they win their majority to put up taxes on older people and wealthier people now that the Tories have handed them a budget which will need tens of billions in tax rises and tens of billions in spending cuts.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
Of course we know there's a curve. Do you think we'd generate more or less in taxes if we had 100% tax rates?
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
Yes but the “curve” is not a simple function of tax take vs tax rate. It will depend on all manner of factors including the state of other world economies, the political environment, etc. Your over simplification is juvenile.
Its not juvenile since I'm not overly simplifying it, conversations tend to end up talking in simpler concepts.
I actually 100% agree with you about the manner of factors being relevant, indeed I made that same comment myself earlier in the thread, so you're not contradicting me!
Can people please stop talking down the pound? If you're not Backing Britain then then you're just a Putin apologist aren't you?
it's not the £ that should worry HMG right now (tho it is a little unnerving) it is the cost of borrowing going through the ceiling. Just as we try to borrow *quite a lot*
I'm honestly still a bit shocked at the new fiscal policy direction. We've completely abandoned any pretence of sound money and fully embraced US style trickle down capitalism.
Someone in the next few years is going to have to make absolutely eye watering spending cuts including a lot of sacred cows like healthcare and old age spending to make this work. We can't have an 11% state and public sector pension rise that will add £16bn to spending per year and another £6-7bn the following years and all of these tax cuts. One of these is unaffordable.
Reeves will have to be the butcher who slashes public services or it's the IMF.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
Perhaps we could give people at the bottom more than a few pennies by not giving back quite as many bags of pennies to the landed few at the top.
You have been a champion for people fucked by marginal tax rates - something I applaud you for. Yet here you are applauding a budget which does brutal marginal tax rates to people on very modest incomes https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1573249403795939328
This, like everything George Eaton does, is dubious. He's assuming everyone earning 150k has already paid off their student loan, everyone on 50k hasn't, and calling it tax. Even if you believe modern student loans are effectively a graduate tax, this analysis is childishly simplistic.
I left uni 10 years ago and am nowhere near paying off my original loan.
You're not supposed to "pay it off" unless you are very well paid. A student "loan" is not a debt.
So? It’s still a significant tax on graduate incomes and fiscal drag will make it worse.
That may be so. But it's not a debt, and people who are intelligent enough to go to university should be able to understand that and treat it accordingly.
I'm honestly still a bit shocked at the new fiscal policy direction. We've completely abandoned any pretence of sound money and fully embraced US style trickle down capitalism.
Someone in the next few years is going to have to make absolutely eye watering spending cuts including a lot of sacred cows like healthcare and old age spending to make this work. We can't have an 11% state and public sector pension rise that will add £16bn to spending per year and another £6-7bn the following years and all of these tax cuts. One of these is unaffordable.
The central problem with trying to balance the books is going to be Labour, as much as the Conservatives, running scared of the grey vote. There's going to be no way to achieve this that doesn't involve throwing the triple lock in the dustbin and taxing the crap out of housing. But they'll be desperate not to do any of it.
I think it's going to take a proper gilt strike, so that the Government can no longer borrow to fund more spending, before the politicians are forced to do any of this stuff - and by then the situation will be so acute that a whole lot of other core spending and "free" services may have to go as well.
Can people please stop talking down the pound? If you're not Backing Britain then then you're just a Putin apologist aren't you?
it's not the £ that should worry HMG right now (tho it is a little unnerving) it is the cost of borrowing going through the ceiling. Just as we try to borrow *quite a lot*
Yep. Price of government debt going through the ceiling. So its definitely the right time to borrow in large quantities to "write a fat cheque to a fat czech"
Kwasi should just style this market tantrum out. Credit traders have been itching to short gilts and this was their signal. That said it was incredible the Boe didn’t match the Fed rate increase this week.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
Of course we know there's a curve. Do you think we'd generate more or less in taxes if we had 100% tax rates?
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
No, you are assuming some kind of predictable relationship between tax rate changes within that 0-100% range, which is necessary to give a 'curve'. If that predictable relationship simply doesn't exist - and no one has been able to give any account of it which is practically useful - then your 'curve' is an imaginary thing.
No I am not. The principle exists, but the relationship is not remotely predictable, but nor does it need to be.
We can debate whether we think taxes are too high, or not high enough, but the fact that they might be too high is a simple economic principle. Whether they are or aren't, is up for debate.
Personally I think highest rate in 74 years + anaemic growth as a result + tax rises not raising the revenues they were predicted to raise is all evidence that we are past the peak. Others take the opposite view. I'm not conceited enough to say I'm definitely right, but others seem to want to act as if I'm definitely wrong.
Russian officers tell newly mobilized men here that they will have three days where they are and then around two weeks of training before they’re ready to be shipped out to Ukraine (and likely used as cannon fodder). https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1573299600215404544
This is presumably for the mobilized reservists? If Putin is giving men with no previous military training just two weeks then the officers who have to lead them into battle are just going to wave the white flag after about ten minutes.
Maybe they're sending them in to vote in the referendum ?
The craziest story out there, which has gone almost completely unnoticed, is the scientists who wrote a detailed paper about all the UFOs recently seen over Ukraine
“Astronomers in Ukraine are observing UFOs "everywhere" and classifying them as Cosmics or Phantoms based on brightness. They estimate their size to be about 3 to 12 meters with speeds over 33,000 mph. For context, planes fly at 500-600 mph.”
What was that tv show about aliens who helped humanity unify after a global conflict, only it turned out the aliens had been around and helped start it secretly.
Cracking plot twist
The theory is the aliens are intrigued/concerned at our apparent desire to destroy ourselves, hence their interest in military sites, esp nukes. Makes sense they’d be all over Ukraine
I also love the way that scientific paper calmly solves the problem: Where are all the good photos of UFOs now that we all have cameras?
Our cameras can’t capture them. They fly too fast to be registered by normal cameras (or the human eye)
I mean, if this is true (and not a hoax) this is the biggest story in human history. Just calmly sitting out there. Buried under the news of Her Majesty’s demise
Are you fingering aliens for HM's demise?
(Interesting preprint btw, I've only given it a very quick skim, but I'll look in more detail later.)
It’s properly fascinating. I don’t believe it’s a hoax. Do read
I remember when I first started ranting about UFOs on here (prompted by @moonshine) someone said: Yeah, whatever, I’ll only be interested when there are actual scientific papers about UFOs, by proper scientists
Well, here you go. Here’s a proper scientific paper by actual boffins. Observing multiple unknown craft flying at 55,000 KPH
Much faster than even the fastest ICBM
And they are clustering over a war zone with a potential to go nuclear….
We are getting quite close to Full Disclosure (unless this is a truly elaborate hoax)
I've not read it but skimmed the document. It's just a pdf with some pretty graphics. There must be about 500 words in it, tops. Two references. Sorry but it looks Mickey Mouse. Anyone could have made it, then uploaded it.
It hasn't been published and it's not clear where the authors are affiliated.
I would place about 1% weighting on the credibility of that source, with current information.
Having now read it through, I agree. Physics is not my field any more, but there's nowhere near enough detail in this to get it through peer review (or to peer review at any journal whose editors are doing their job). Which is not necessarily a problem, arxiv is supposed to be about getting stuff out pre-submissions.
Some issues: - complete lack of info on cameras and setup, so we can't consider likelihood of other sources of signals, e.g. interference* - more broadly almost complete lack of detail in methods - some objects only captured in one frame and a minimum speed inferred from that (but if it's only in one frame it could be something that's transient and not moving at all) - one object captured at two sites, which would rule out random interference* in one camera - but only one? - and also quite late in the paper; this is by far the best evidence for an actual something, I'd lead with it personally - lots of chat about NASA, US DoD etc without any direct link - it's fine, but it seems to big up things a bit - lack of discussion, should explore and (if appropriate) discount alternative explanations
Whatever the explanation, it's likely to be interesting, if possibly mundane. I remember stories from physis profs of interesting things detected in sensitive equipment that turned out to be the cleaner turning on the vac three floors away for example. Who knows. If there's a full paper, I'll be interested to read it in due course.
This kind of reads like a first draft undergrad project write-up - is it possible that's it and a student got overexcited and popped it on arxiv with supervisors names? Are all the authors confirmed as bona fide qualified scientists?
*interefence as in something causing an electron to move in the sensor, not deliberate manipulation by the authors etc
All the authors verify as real Ukrainian professors
And yes it could just be a gremlin. I am reminded of that Italian scientist who claimed he'd found Faster Than Light movement, but it turned out he was simply measuring it wrong (IIRC)
You would really love to see some of those backbench WhatsApp conversations today. She has outlasted Edwin Poots leadership I guess but after that all bets may be off....
"Bond yields, a measure of borrowing costs, shot higher, which will make the interest the government pays on the new debt it issues much more expensive. The yield on benchmark 10-year government bonds climbed to the highest since 2011. And the yield on the five-year bond rose by more than half a percentage point, to 4.15 percent, a huge move in a market where daily changes are typically measured in hundredths of a point."
“It’s fair to say that the gilt market hated today’s mini-budget,” Jim Leaviss, a bond investor at M&G Investments, said in emailed comments, referring to the market for British government bonds.
So this horrendously risky tax cutting budget has taken us from the highest rate in 74 years to a tax rate still higher than any of the past 40 pre-pandemic years?
Taxes are still too high. They should be cut further still, but this is a good start.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
Of course we know there's a curve. Do you think we'd generate more or less in taxes if we had 100% tax rates?
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
Many have debunked the correlation that you and Laffer insists works. You have adopted your usual stopped clock strategy to prove its validity.
Nobody has debunked Laffer, people dispute it but disputing something and debunking it are two completely different things.
As it stands, we have the highest tax rates and most anaemic long term growth rates in three quarters of a century. You can argue that's correlation instead of causation if you please, but that doesn't make my view that one is causing the other wrong.
I said the Tories were wrong to put up taxes, and tore up my membership as a result. I will stand by my principles, high taxes doesn't work.
This is infantile.
Firstly, the Laffer curve is about the relationship between tax rate & tax revenue. It has nothing to do with GDP growth.
Secondly, Laffer is obviously true at the extremes. But in the wide middle range of possible tax takes there’s no evidence for any strong relationship at all & the point of maximum revenue is probably much higher than current rates.
If you want to talk about the relationship between GDP & tax rates by all means do so, but Laffer is tangential at best.
Can people please stop talking down the pound? If you're not Backing Britain then then you're just a Putin apologist aren't you?
it's not the £ that should worry HMG right now (tho it is a little unnerving) it is the cost of borrowing going through the ceiling. Just as we try to borrow *quite a lot*
Almost like an increased supply of something has an impact on its price…
The energy package took 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which in turn will reduce inflation linked gilt payments and index linked state spending. So a tick there. The failure of the BoE to keep up with fed tightening has had a deleterious effect on Sterling, short term inflation and gilt prices. They are also selling gilts from QT as well. The borrowing implied by today’s package a further hammer but it’s the long term impact that will matter.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
Of course we know there's a curve. Do you think we'd generate more or less in taxes if we had 100% tax rates?
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
Many have debunked the correlation that you and Laffer insists works. You have adopted your usual stopped clock strategy to prove its validity.
Nobody has debunked Laffer....
There is nothing to debunk. There is no mathematical formula, or series of formulas, which usefully predict the relationship between lowering tax rates and increasing tax take for any given economy. There's just a drawing on the back of a napkin.
If you know of such, please set them out.
That sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take is not controversial. What's nonsense is the idea of a "curve"; that is no more unproved theorem, and a poorly stated one at that.
I'm honestly still a bit shocked at the new fiscal policy direction. We've completely abandoned any pretence of sound money and fully embraced US style trickle down capitalism.
Someone in the next few years is going to have to make absolutely eye watering spending cuts including a lot of sacred cows like healthcare and old age spending to make this work. We can't have an 11% state and public sector pension rise that will add £16bn to spending per year and another £6-7bn the following years and all of these tax cuts. One of these is unaffordable.
By delaying the decision on the spending cuts (or tax rises) to pay for today's tax cuts the situation will be even worse when it is eventually faced. We'll have so much more debt to pay interest on and we'll be paying a much higher interest rate on our debt because of the loss of confidence.
It feels like the country's finances are passing a point of no return from problematic to calamitous.
Timothy Ash @tashecon · 45m Near universal response from the people in the City I talk to is that this is a pretty disastrous “special fiscal operation” by Kwasi Kwateng. The mood is grim around all things to do with the UK.
Can people please stop talking down the pound? If you're not Backing Britain then then you're just a Putin apologist aren't you?
it's not the £ that should worry HMG right now (tho it is a little unnerving) it is the cost of borrowing going through the ceiling. Just as we try to borrow *quite a lot*
Almost like an increased supply of something has an impact on its price…
The energy package took 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which in turn will reduce inflation linked gilt payments and index linked state spending. So a tick there. The failure of the BoE to keep up with fed tightening has had a deleterious effect on Sterling, short term inflation and gilt prices. They are also selling gilts from QT as well. The borrowing implied by today’s package a further hammer but it’s the long term impact that will matter.
They should have done something (is it too late?) to make Sunak's £400 register against inflation too.
The craziest story out there, which has gone almost completely unnoticed, is the scientists who wrote a detailed paper about all the UFOs recently seen over Ukraine
“Astronomers in Ukraine are observing UFOs "everywhere" and classifying them as Cosmics or Phantoms based on brightness. They estimate their size to be about 3 to 12 meters with speeds over 33,000 mph. For context, planes fly at 500-600 mph.”
What was that tv show about aliens who helped humanity unify after a global conflict, only it turned out the aliens had been around and helped start it secretly.
Cracking plot twist
The theory is the aliens are intrigued/concerned at our apparent desire to destroy ourselves, hence their interest in military sites, esp nukes. Makes sense they’d be all over Ukraine
I also love the way that scientific paper calmly solves the problem: Where are all the good photos of UFOs now that we all have cameras?
Our cameras can’t capture them. They fly too fast to be registered by normal cameras (or the human eye)
I mean, if this is true (and not a hoax) this is the biggest story in human history. Just calmly sitting out there. Buried under the news of Her Majesty’s demise
Are you fingering aliens for HM's demise?
(Interesting preprint btw, I've only given it a very quick skim, but I'll look in more detail later.)
It’s properly fascinating. I don’t believe it’s a hoax. Do read
I remember when I first started ranting about UFOs on here (prompted by @moonshine) someone said: Yeah, whatever, I’ll only be interested when there are actual scientific papers about UFOs, by proper scientists
Well, here you go. Here’s a proper scientific paper by actual boffins. Observing multiple unknown craft flying at 55,000 KPH
Much faster than even the fastest ICBM
And they are clustering over a war zone with a potential to go nuclear….
We are getting quite close to Full Disclosure (unless this is a truly elaborate hoax)
I've not read it but skimmed the document. It's just a pdf with some pretty graphics. There must be about 500 words in it, tops. Two references. Sorry but it looks Mickey Mouse. Anyone could have made it, then uploaded it.
It hasn't been published and it's not clear where the authors are affiliated.
I would place about 1% weighting on the credibility of that source, with current information.
Having now read it through, I agree. Physics is not my field any more, but there's nowhere near enough detail in this to get it through peer review (or to peer review at any journal whose editors are doing their job). Which is not necessarily a problem, arxiv is supposed to be about getting stuff out pre-submissions.
Some issues: - complete lack of info on cameras and setup, so we can't consider likelihood of other sources of signals, e.g. interference* - more broadly almost complete lack of detail in methods - some objects only captured in one frame and a minimum speed inferred from that (but if it's only in one frame it could be something that's transient and not moving at all) - one object captured at two sites, which would rule out random interference* in one camera - but only one? - and also quite late in the paper; this is by far the best evidence for an actual something, I'd lead with it personally - lots of chat about NASA, US DoD etc without any direct link - it's fine, but it seems to big up things a bit - lack of discussion, should explore and (if appropriate) discount alternative explanations
Whatever the explanation, it's likely to be interesting, if possibly mundane. I remember stories from physis profs of interesting things detected in sensitive equipment that turned out to be the cleaner turning on the vac three floors away for example. Who knows. If there's a full paper, I'll be interested to read it in due course.
This kind of reads like a first draft undergrad project write-up - is it possible that's it and a student got overexcited and popped it on arxiv with supervisors names? Are all the authors confirmed as bona fide qualified scientists?
*interefence as in something causing an electron to move in the sensor, not deliberate manipulation by the authors etc
All the authors verify as real Ukrainian professors
And yes it could just be a gremlin. I am reminded of that Italian scientist who claimed he'd found Faster Than Light movement, but it turned out he was simply measuring it wrong (IIRC)
Here's another slightly older real scientific paper for you (subsequently retracted). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6910781/ A Black Hole at the Center of Earth Plays the Role of the Biggest System of Telecommunication for Connecting DNAs, Dark DNAs and Molecules of Water on 4+N- Dimensional Manifold Recently, some scientists from NASA have claimed that there may be a black hole like structure at the centre of the earth. We show that the existence of life on the earth may be a reason that this black hole like object is a black brane that has been formed from biological materials like DNA. Size of this DNA black brane is 109 times longer than the size of the earth’s core and compacted interior it. By compacting this long object, a curved space-time emerges, and some properties of black holes emerge. This structure is the main cause of the emergence of the large temperature of the core, magnetic field around the earth and gravitational field for moving around the sun. Also, this structure produces some waves which act like topoisomerase in biology and read the information on DNAs. However, on the four-dimensional manifold, DNAs are contracted at least four times around various axis’s and waves of earth couldn’t read their information. While, by adding extra dimensions on 4 +n-dimensional manifold, the separation distance between particles increases and all of the information could be recovered by waves. For this reason, each DNA has two parts which one can be seen on the four-dimensional universe, and another one has existed in extra dimensions, and only it’s e_ects is observed. This dark part of DNA called as a dark DNA in an extra dimension. These dark DNAs not only exchange information with DNAs but also are connected with some of the molecules of water and helps them to store information and have memory. Thus, the earth is the biggest system of telecommunication which connects DNAs, dark DNAs and molecules of water.
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
Perhaps we could give people at the bottom more than a few pennies by not giving back quite as many bags of pennies to the landed few at the top.
You have been a champion for people fucked by marginal tax rates - something I applaud you for. Yet here you are applauding a budget which does brutal marginal tax rates to people on very modest incomes https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1573249403795939328
Yes taxes are too high still on the young and low earners especially, I completely agree with that, but taxes are lower on them with these announcements than they were before hand, and for that I completely applaud today's announcements.
People are still being screwed over, taxes are still too high, and I'd like them to be cut further. But a step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.
OK Bart. The last ten years have seen local authority budgets cut to the bone, the NHS is in crisis and demands more resources, social care is on the verge of collapse, and through Russian aggression we need to increase defence spending.
Inflation is out of control, and the cost of borrowing has gone through the roof since this morning, how, if not by taxation can we steady the ship to current austerity levels without even thinking about additional spending on services, the military, the NHS and social care?
I am going to get a nice windfall from this budget.
And I am going to invest it in the stock market to inflate my own wealth further.
Hardly stimulating the economy is it?
I am absolutely delighted the Tories have been able to fix the transport, housing and tuition fee issues that were holding you back to the point you can now talk about your own wealth instead.
You must be delighted. I'm happy for you. Well done you.
Unlike some, I actually care about those around me.
I do better under the Tories, society does not. And young people don't in general either.
Don't feel so down on yourself, society is made up of people like you. You doing better and others who work hard doing better makes society better. Its a virtuous circle.
Pruning back the taxes that hold everyone, even those on Minimum Wage, back allows everyone who works for a living to be better off. Just like you.
Is this the new CCHQ script? I am not voting Tory until the current lot are gone. Bring Cameron and co back and I'll consider it like I did in 2005/2010
(I know Cameron wasn't the leader in 2005 at the GE)
No script. I have no connection to CCHQ which is why I'm frequently critical on Tory policy when I disagree with it, like when Sunak was in charge.
Personally I think it's fantastic that anyone working for a living, from those on Minimum Wage onwards, can now keep more of their money?
Do you agree with that? Or would you like to tax even those on Minimum Wage by even more?
We all rely on public services. They have to be paid for. Those on lowest incomes rely on government spending more than most. So yes, those on the minimum wage should also contribute to funding those services. Of course if the government wanted to help those people it could have raised the personal allowance but instead it targeted its giveaway at people on £150k+. Who are least likely to spend it, and who don't need the help right now.
Taxes have been ratchetted higher and higher for twenty years. And the result is the highest tax rates for 74 years and just as Laffer predicts we have seen growth stall to anemic levels as a result.
Putting up taxes doesn't lead to growth. The high tax experiment has failed, it's time to return to what works.
From someone who has already admitted he doesn't know where on the so-called Laffer curve we are.
And now claiming that we have to make a dramatic change on the basis of an assumption about what he doesn't know. And characterises that as a a "return to what works."
Sheer gibberish.
Economics involves uncertainty, anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.
I believe we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve and have given my argument as to why.
Do I "know" that for certain? No, its impossible to do so. But we have IMHO very good evidence to demonstrate that.
Nobody here who disagrees can possibly "know" for certain that we aren't to the right of the peak either. All we can do is make an educated guess and hope we're right.
You don't even know that there is such a thing as either a 'peak' or a 'curve'. There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case. There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
Of course we know there's a curve. Do you think we'd generate more or less in taxes if we had 100% tax rates?
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
No, you are assuming some kind of predictable relationship between tax rate changes within that 0-100% range, which is necessary to give a 'curve'. If that predictable relationship simply doesn't exist - and no one has been able to give any account of it which is practically useful - then your 'curve' is an imaginary thing.
Are you just as skeptical with respect to the Ptolemaic system and Caloric theory, as re: the Laffer Curve?
Much more important than what the markets do today is what they do next week after the analysts have had the weekend to absorb and work through all the detail. If they fall again, then the government is in serious trouble.
The craziest story out there, which has gone almost completely unnoticed, is the scientists who wrote a detailed paper about all the UFOs recently seen over Ukraine
“Astronomers in Ukraine are observing UFOs "everywhere" and classifying them as Cosmics or Phantoms based on brightness. They estimate their size to be about 3 to 12 meters with speeds over 33,000 mph. For context, planes fly at 500-600 mph.”
What was that tv show about aliens who helped humanity unify after a global conflict, only it turned out the aliens had been around and helped start it secretly.
Cracking plot twist
The theory is the aliens are intrigued/concerned at our apparent desire to destroy ourselves, hence their interest in military sites, esp nukes. Makes sense they’d be all over Ukraine
I also love the way that scientific paper calmly solves the problem: Where are all the good photos of UFOs now that we all have cameras?
Our cameras can’t capture them. They fly too fast to be registered by normal cameras (or the human eye)
I mean, if this is true (and not a hoax) this is the biggest story in human history. Just calmly sitting out there. Buried under the news of Her Majesty’s demise
Are you fingering aliens for HM's demise?
(Interesting preprint btw, I've only given it a very quick skim, but I'll look in more detail later.)
It’s properly fascinating. I don’t believe it’s a hoax. Do read
I remember when I first started ranting about UFOs on here (prompted by @moonshine) someone said: Yeah, whatever, I’ll only be interested when there are actual scientific papers about UFOs, by proper scientists
Well, here you go. Here’s a proper scientific paper by actual boffins. Observing multiple unknown craft flying at 55,000 KPH
Much faster than even the fastest ICBM
And they are clustering over a war zone with a potential to go nuclear….
We are getting quite close to Full Disclosure (unless this is a truly elaborate hoax)
I've not read it but skimmed the document. It's just a pdf with some pretty graphics. There must be about 500 words in it, tops. Two references. Sorry but it looks Mickey Mouse. Anyone could have made it, then uploaded it.
It hasn't been published and it's not clear where the authors are affiliated.
I would place about 1% weighting on the credibility of that source, with current information.
Having now read it through, I agree. Physics is not my field any more, but there's nowhere near enough detail in this to get it through peer review (or to peer review at any journal whose editors are doing their job). Which is not necessarily a problem, arxiv is supposed to be about getting stuff out pre-submissions.
Some issues: - complete lack of info on cameras and setup, so we can't consider likelihood of other sources of signals, e.g. interference* - more broadly almost complete lack of detail in methods - some objects only captured in one frame and a minimum speed inferred from that (but if it's only in one frame it could be something that's transient and not moving at all) - one object captured at two sites, which would rule out random interference* in one camera - but only one? - and also quite late in the paper; this is by far the best evidence for an actual something, I'd lead with it personally - lots of chat about NASA, US DoD etc without any direct link - it's fine, but it seems to big up things a bit - lack of discussion, should explore and (if appropriate) discount alternative explanations
Whatever the explanation, it's likely to be interesting, if possibly mundane. I remember stories from physis profs of interesting things detected in sensitive equipment that turned out to be the cleaner turning on the vac three floors away for example. Who knows. If there's a full paper, I'll be interested to read it in due course.
This kind of reads like a first draft undergrad project write-up - is it possible that's it and a student got overexcited and popped it on arxiv with supervisors names? Are all the authors confirmed as bona fide qualified scientists?
*interefence as in something causing an electron to move in the sensor, not deliberate manipulation by the authors etc
All the authors verify as real Ukrainian professors
And yes it could just be a gremlin. I am reminded of that Italian scientist who claimed he'd found Faster Than Light movement, but it turned out he was simply measuring it wrong (IIRC)
Professors? You sent me a ResearchGate page. That doesn't make someone a professor. 224 citations from 135 publications (a bunch of conference papers / pre-prints / garbage journals)? Lol. They are probably all self-cites.
Here is another of his other 'published' works:
Asteroids are murderers of civilizations (0 citations).
Is he a real person? Probably. Should he be someone you should give much attention to? Err no, not unless you are a fantasy writer.
Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
General answer: inflation is a general measure, any individual or organisation will find their costs rise by more or less than this amount
NHS answer: in addition to the above, the number of people needing care is increasing and the number of things to spend money on per person is increasing too with new therapies and new problems from living longer. Kings Fund for example have some analyses on changes needed to NHS budget just to keep going at current service level.
Comments
* Unless its a black hole, and even they are thought to emit Hawking radiation.
https://twitter.com/M_PaulMcNamara/status/1573248066131742721
Currency crisis anyone?
I can also believe that they are really seeing something
it would be great if it was properly addressed by boffins
I was waiting for the first poster to write "this will also aid our exporters of course".
That is economic orthodoxy. You are not an orthodox economist!
I'm not sure it has the relevance it once did, now we have so little to export.
Someone in the next few years is going to have to make absolutely eye watering spending cuts including a lot of sacred cows like healthcare and old age spending to make this work. We can't have an 11% state and public sector pension rise that will add £16bn to spending per year and another £6-7bn the following years and all of these tax cuts. One of these is unaffordable.
There's just the observation that sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take in that particular case.
There is no evidence at all for anything more than that.
I am far from Laffer's last flag flyer. But riddle me this, if high tax rates work then why when tax rates are at the highest in 74 years do we not have the fastest consistent growth in 74 years? Why is the opposite true?
The facts speak for themselves, taxes have been consistently lifted, and growth has evaporated as a result. High taxes strangle growth, its time to take the handbrake off the economy.
This isn't a "break with orthodoxy" , it's a descent into madness - doing the same thing and expecting a different result. 1988, 1972 - big tax cuts, followed by inflation, rate hikes, currency crises, housing market crashes and a visit from the IMF. It is all so sadly predictable. Last one out turn off the lights.
@faisalislam
·
15m
🚨
OK Sterling in free fall now… to incredible new 37 year lows vs dollar
Down to $1.089
(By the way, are the NIESR actually considered independent and/or unbiased? They are often talked about in that way.)
UK economy actually collapses. Final proof that aliens are visiting earth. Russia prepares for nuclear war
Did I miss anything?
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1573299600215404544
I think I may use it to make some very high risk investments in UK start up funds. It seems like that would be the best use of it where everyone wins. Clearly the government has given up on the idea of supporting industry...
The question is the shape and rates of the curve, not the fact that there is a curve.
If I were in a more price-sensitive business, I could reduce the price to beat my competitors, which would be another effect. But that doesn't really apply in my case.
There might be enough Tories who aren’t bonkers to abstain/vote with Labour but even if there aren’t then, should this go the way it’s sadly likely to and the economy is fried, then they can shout from the rooftops that they tried to stop this.
Who marked the pound up at the start of the Kwast-event ?
https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde/status/1573332705450020865
From the IFS analysis. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/mini-budget-response
Some issues:
- complete lack of info on cameras and setup, so we can't consider likelihood of other sources of signals, e.g. interference*
- more broadly almost complete lack of detail in methods
- some objects only captured in one frame and a minimum speed inferred from that (but if it's only in one frame it could be something that's transient and not moving at all)
- one object captured at two sites, which would rule out random interference* in one camera - but only one? - and also quite late in the paper; this is by far the best evidence for an actual something, I'd lead with it personally
- lots of chat about NASA, US DoD etc without any direct link - it's fine, but it seems to big up things a bit
- lack of discussion, should explore and (if appropriate) discount alternative explanations
Whatever the explanation, it's likely to be interesting, if possibly mundane. I remember stories from physis profs of interesting things detected in sensitive equipment that turned out to be the cleaner turning on the vac three floors away for example. Who knows. If there's a full paper, I'll be interested to read it in due course.
This kind of reads like a first draft undergrad project write-up - is it possible that's it and a student got overexcited and popped it on arxiv with supervisors names? Are all the authors confirmed as bona fide qualified scientists?
*interefence as in something causing an electron to move in the sensor, not deliberate manipulation by the authors etc
Decide for yourself
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/xcbsfv/the_first_objects_captured_with_the_camera/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
It all happened on the equinox. Gotta be sign.
As it stands, we have the highest tax rates and most anaemic long term growth rates in three quarters of a century. You can argue that's correlation instead of causation if you please, but that doesn't make my view that one is causing the other wrong.
I said the Tories were wrong to put up taxes, and tore up my membership as a result. I will stand by my principles, high taxes doesn't work.
If that predictable relationship simply doesn't exist - and no one has been able to give any account of it which is practically useful - then your 'curve' is an imaginary thing.
It's a huge gamble and one that I don't see coming off and the nation will pick up the pieces for this act of idiocy from Truss and Kwarteng.
Labour really do have a once in a generation opportunity after they win their majority to put up taxes on older people and wealthier people now that the Tories have handed them a budget which will need tens of billions in tax rises and tens of billions in spending cuts.
I actually 100% agree with you about the manner of factors being relevant, indeed I made that same comment myself earlier in the thread, so you're not contradicting me!
Maybe that is the whole truss gameplan?
I think it's going to take a proper gilt strike, so that the Government can no longer borrow to fund more spending, before the politicians are forced to do any of this stuff - and by then the situation will be so acute that a whole lot of other core spending and "free" services may have to go as well.
We can debate whether we think taxes are too high, or not high enough, but the fact that they might be too high is a simple economic principle. Whether they are or aren't, is up for debate.
Personally I think highest rate in 74 years + anaemic growth as a result + tax rises not raising the revenues they were predicted to raise is all evidence that we are past the peak. Others take the opposite view. I'm not conceited enough to say I'm definitely right, but others seem to want to act as if I'm definitely wrong.
And yes it could just be a gremlin. I am reminded of that Italian scientist who claimed he'd found Faster Than Light movement, but it turned out he was simply measuring it wrong (IIRC)
"Bond yields, a measure of borrowing costs, shot higher, which will make the interest the government pays on the new debt it issues much more expensive. The yield on benchmark 10-year government bonds climbed to the highest since 2011. And the yield on the five-year bond rose by more than half a percentage point, to 4.15 percent, a huge move in a market where daily changes are typically measured in hundredths of a point."
“It’s fair to say that the gilt market hated today’s mini-budget,” Jim Leaviss, a bond investor at M&G Investments, said in emailed comments, referring to the market for British government bonds.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/business/uk-government-pound-tax.html
Taxes are still too high. They should be cut further still, but this is a good start.
Firstly, the Laffer curve is about the relationship between tax rate & tax revenue. It has nothing to do with GDP growth.
Secondly, Laffer is obviously true at the extremes. But in the wide middle range of possible tax takes there’s no evidence for any strong relationship at all & the point of maximum revenue is probably much higher than current rates.
If you want to talk about the relationship between GDP & tax rates by all means do so, but Laffer is tangential at best.
The energy package took 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which in turn will reduce inflation linked gilt payments and index linked state spending. So a tick there. The failure of the BoE to keep up with fed tightening has had a deleterious effect on Sterling, short term inflation and gilt prices. They are also selling gilts from QT as well. The borrowing implied by today’s package a further hammer but it’s the long term impact that will matter.
There is no mathematical formula, or series of formulas, which usefully predict the relationship between lowering tax rates and increasing tax take for any given economy. There's just a drawing on the back of a napkin.
If you know of such, please set them out.
That sometimes cutting taxes results in an increased tax take is not controversial.
What's nonsense is the idea of a "curve"; that is no more unproved theorem, and a poorly stated one at that.
It feels like the country's finances are passing a point of no return from problematic to calamitous.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6910781/
A Black Hole at the Center of Earth Plays the Role of the Biggest System of Telecommunication for Connecting DNAs, Dark DNAs and Molecules of Water on 4+N- Dimensional Manifold
Recently, some scientists from NASA have claimed that there may be a black hole like structure at the centre of the earth. We show that the existence of life on the earth may be a reason that this black hole like object is a black brane that has been formed from biological materials like DNA. Size of this DNA black brane is 109 times longer than the size of the earth’s core and compacted interior it. By compacting this long object, a curved space-time emerges, and some properties of black holes emerge. This structure is the main cause of the emergence of the large temperature of the core, magnetic field around the earth and gravitational field for moving around the sun. Also, this structure produces some waves which act like topoisomerase in biology and read the information on DNAs. However, on the four-dimensional manifold, DNAs are contracted at least four times around various axis’s and waves of earth couldn’t read their information. While, by adding extra dimensions on 4 +n-dimensional manifold, the separation distance between particles increases and all of the information could be recovered by waves. For this reason, each DNA has two parts which one can be seen on the four-dimensional universe, and another one has existed in extra dimensions, and only it’s e_ects is observed. This dark part of DNA called as a dark DNA in an extra dimension. These dark DNAs not only exchange information with DNAs but also are connected with some of the molecules of water and helps them to store information and have memory. Thus, the earth is the biggest system of telecommunication which connects DNAs, dark DNAs and molecules of water.
Inflation is out of control, and the cost of borrowing has gone through the roof since this morning, how, if not by taxation can we steady the ship to current austerity levels without even thinking about additional spending on services, the military, the NHS and social care?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo
Here is another of his other 'published' works:
Asteroids are murderers of civilizations (0 citations).
Is he a real person? Probably. Should he be someone you should give much attention to? Err no, not unless you are a fantasy writer.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
NHS answer: in addition to the above, the number of people needing care is increasing and the number of things to spend money on per person is increasing too with new therapies and new problems from living longer. Kings Fund for example have some analyses on changes needed to NHS budget just to keep going at current service level.